Uh oh...

[b_usa]

600 mp3s in a day is a lot? I had a friend who always had mIRC and KaZaA running full tilt at 225k/s. Be on your best behaviour, kids.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=575&u=/nm/20030121/wr_nm/tech_music_dc_3&printer=1

[GeekGuy]

To the death and destruction of thr RIAA and affiliate companies!! Inde musicians to battle!

[Whipping Boy]

I find it an interesting commentary on the state of support for freedom in society when people have a problem with the RIAA having a problem with people stealing its stuff.

Private property is essential for a free society.

[Whipping Boy]

I find it an interesting commentary on the state of support for freedom in society when people have a problem with the RIAA having a problem with people stealing its stuff.

Private property is essential for a free society.

[guitargeek]

To the death and destruction of thr RIAA and affiliate companies!! Inde musicians to battle!

I'm right there with you, brother.

I find it interesting that it's ok to monitor one's internet activity, yet people object to other forms of "observation", if you will, such as random checks at airports, video cameras on public streets, etc. I see this as no different. So, they're monitoring everyone's activity to make sure that you aren't downloading any copyrighted material. Now the door is open for them to monitor other internet activities as well. What about those porn sites you like to view late at night, hmmm?

It's a disturbing case.

[Penrich]

Should Verizon give out the name? No.

Should you steal? No.

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
I find it an interesting commentary on the state of support for freedom in society when people have a problem with the RIAA having a problem with people stealing its stuff.

Private property is essential for a free society.

Take a boo at some previous issues of the Electronic Frontier Foundations newsletters.

When you see what the RIAA and Sen. "Fritz" Hollings team have in mind, you'll see how deep this issue goes.

In a nutshell, if the RIAA has it's way, all electronic entertainment devices, VCR, DVD, camcorder, computers, TV's, etc. will not be your private property. They will be monitored and controlled by a hollywood assigned monitoring station and your purchased equipment that you worked for, paid money for, will actually be leased to you. They can disable it for whatever reason at any time with no legal recourse by you.

So, unless the medium is one produced by or authorized by the RIAA, it will not play. This leaves Inde musicians backed into a corner - no join RIAA or society, no one can play our music.

They already declare that all music, video and such are not ours, but on lease to us. New players made for new formats could intergrate technology which forces you to pay yearly renewal fees to listen to music or watch videos. The fees would be forever as long as you own the item.

The basic Inde stance is - you bought it, it's yours......period. A percent has gone to the musician(s), they are paid in full. We have stolen nothing.

Theoretical deadline for this "Fritz" chip technology is 2009.

Majorly set back by the fact both Intel and Philips see it as so unethical, they refuse to design or manufacture the chips.

Nations outside the US are against this saying the DMCA and RIAA are American inventions with no jurisdiction outside the US. Copyright must be honored under the laws of each individual country. Hence, Norway let the DVD kid go.

Example, Canada has the CPCC - which blanket grants Canadians to make copies for personal use of anything pretty much.

CPCC is in direct conflict of DMCA, yet CPCC law reigns here. So, technically, all "Fritzed" units will be illegal here.

So, the issue is private property - we want to keep your CD's, your entertainment equipment and your electronic media YOUR private property - not Hollywood's just on loan to you :)

I have just scratched the surface.

For more info, see:

www.eff.org
www.efc.ca
www.iuma.com - forums

Did I miss anything in here Guitargeek :confused:

[Seph64]

I am not going to pay $20 for a CD that may only have 1 song I like. Yes I can understand that the song in question maybe a single, but maybe not.

RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot. They got rid of Napster, dispite the fact that Napster was actually INCREASING record sales. It is their own fault that sales are falling. Taking away Napster pissed alot of people (myself included) off. Initially, I was downloading off of napster to sample songs that I may want to buy in the future, but now I am just boycotting the RIAA. And it's not their property anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't it be the band's property? If a band tells me to stop downloading their songs, I will do so. I am not going to stop just because RIAA likes taking 90% of the credit for the Music (Bands only get 10% of all Records sales I hear).

[/rant] Just my opinion, you do not have to like it.

[GeekGuy]

Unfortunately, usually the band signs away all rights to the label they recorded on :(

Yes, they are shooting themselves in the foot. I just watched a report on TV that says the european recording companies are looking as ways to INCREASE online music and secure filesharing - just the opposite of what the RIAA is trying to do ;)

[Whipping Boy]

Frankly, that's too ****ing bad. Producers of recording and playback devices have every right to include whatever schemes they like in their products to limit what can be recorded or played back, and they also have every right to decide who they want to make these schemes available to.

Now, if they're trying to get this enforced by law, that's one thing--that IS the antithesis of a free market. But if the RIAA is trying to go about this via voluntary agreements on the part of various companies across many industries, then they have every right to do that.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by Seph64
Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't it be the band's property?

Most likely not. Most record contracts involve the band signing the rights to their songs over to the record company. And since the band created it, they have every right to decide whether or not to give the rights up to someone else.

[Seph64]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Most likely not. Most record contracts involve the band signing the rights to their songs over to the record company. And since the band created it, they have every right to decide whether or not to give the rights up to someone else.

That's a shame that bands have to sign away their properties to get 10% of the credit. The bands got screwed.

This country needs a new Recording Industry. A song should be copyrighted by the band, not the Record company. In a sense, Metallica had no right to sue Napster. Why? Because Metallica had to sign away their rights to the songs.

[Lorithar]

*grins*

You know ... a couple of Canadian fellows actually had a nifty Idea a ways back --- they arranged a scheme that would allow someone who downloaded and used music to donate money ... direct to the musicians.... Made great sense to me ... but I can't find them anymore ... Seems the RIAA didn't like the idea... maybe because the money went to the ... Oh my god ... musicians ...

[quietguy47]

Blank music CD-R/W have a tax on them to "pay the artist" for music copied to them. So if the music is paid for by this "tax" how can it be stealing?

[guitargeek]

Did I miss anything in here Guitargeek


Hah, no, you covered it far better than I could.

I don't like the idea of just downloading every album you could and not paying for music; that screws the bands off. Since I would someday like to be able to support myself as a musician, that doesn't work in my favor. However, the items that GeekGuy posted are what the RIAA are after. Even if it IS within their legal rights, it doesn't mean that we can't try to stop it.

However, they ARE trying to get legislation passed to make this mandatory, which would negate the voluntary contract bit.

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Frankly, that's too ****ing bad. Producers of recording and playback devices have every right to include whatever schemes they like in their products to limit what can be recorded or played back, and they also have every right to decide who they want to make these schemes available to.

Within the laws of that particular country you mean....

Example - DVD-RW for computers with digital I/O in the US I just discovered is illegal - they don't want you making 100% perfect copies of whatever. Analog I/O is OK.

Therefore DVD-RW freely available here, with full digital I/O are fine in Canada, but not in the US.

If the "Fritz Chip" takes hold, they want ALL players worldwide to have them.

(BTW: Not just the RIAA, but Sony is also funding this)

Now, if they're trying to get this enforced by law, that's one thing--that IS the antithesis of a free market. But if the RIAA is trying to go about this via voluntary agreements on the part of various companies across many industries, then they have every right to do that.

Voluntary, yes this could work. But that's not what they have in mind....



I don't like the idea of just downloading every album you could and not paying for music; that screws the bands off.

I agree with you here Guitargeek. IMO, once you have paid for the tunage, it's yours to do as you see fit with. But to make 1000 copies and distribute, is counterproductive to the bands efforts.

For myself, I have publically licenced my music as full "freeware". It is a hobby and I don't want to make money from it unless I sell a CD.

I don't advocate theft, but if someone wants to play a CD for a wedding, they should not have to worry about SOCAN or RIAA thugs barging in the wedding with an ERT team and confiscating everything and arresting the DJ for copyright violations (which happened in Creston, BC in 1999 - I was a witness to it).

P2P sites, like MP3.com have a good system. So does VitaminiC. 50% or more go to the bands and the bands keep the rights to their songs/artwork.

Under most label contracts, bands get less than 20% and give up all say and rights.

So given this, who's really the thief? Makes ya wonder, eh?

(The last point was included for folks here in general as you know this all too well)

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by GeekGuy

So given this, who's really the thief? Makes ya wonder, eh?

The people stealing the music. Artists sign with record companies of their own accord, and they agree to the terms listed.

[GeekGuy]

A record company contract is like an employee agreement - sign it or your fired.

many bands are vocal that they don't agree to the contract, they are forced to take it if they want to work. A good example of this is the band "Queen".

[Whipping Boy]

If you sign it, then you have agreed to it--whether or not you like the terms is a different question entirely. By signing a contract you have agreed to the terms, and are morally and legally obligated to abide by them, and have no one to complain to but yourself for the consequences.

[GeekGuy]

Legally maybe, but morally? Morals and business are a contradiction in terms. I spent 15 years in marketing - my job was to legally screw people out of their money any way I could and see they had no recourse. This was business, but it was not moral.

[Seph64]

I am in agreement with Geekguy here, just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you morally agree to it.

If there were a different Recording industry that allowed the bands to have about 75% control of their songs with most of the credit, how much you want to bet that most bands would switch to it *snaps his fingers* just like that?

[b_usa]

I have bought stuuf that I normally wouldnt have from illbegotten downloads. For instance, if Ive played a cracked game, and I like it, I often end up buying the game so I can have a legit version, same with films and music. I honestly use apps like KaZaA to test oput different forms of media so that I know how my limited funds will be best spent...:) Usually if I like it, it gets bought. If it sucks, it gets rm -R'ed.

[The Ennead IX]

My views are somewhat mixed on the subject and come down to; if you have more than ten or twelve mp3s that you don't own the original to then that's theft plain and simple. It's theft if you own any but hey, i'm easy going :p

Swop music for food etc and apply any argument that entitles you to ownership, it fails. As an example the I wouldn't have bought it anyway argument. Cheers, i'll have that Ferrari over there, I wouldn't have bought it if I could but since someone's left it over there with the doors open and the keys in it? it's mine.
The i'm trying before buying argument? Any shopowner would probably kick me out or have me arrested for having just just taken a chunk out of a chicken leg and a slice of his roast beef beef before walking out with a leg of lamb.

It's wrong. I'm pretty easy going though and the examples are simply that. I even condone and accept some of it but if society doesn't monitor itself (which it is unlikely to do) then it's only a matter of time before the owner acts to protect his own interests.

I do find it ironic though that the greatest proponents of the anti- lobby are also the ones making it simplest to steal (read MS etc). You now don't even need to get the software since it's built into the o/s.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by GeekGuy
Legally maybe, but morally? Morals and business are a contradiction in terms. I spent 15 years in marketing - my job was to legally screw people out of their money any way I could and see they had no recourse. This was business, but it was not moral.

I could post literally pages worth of reasons why profit motive is the most moral motive of all and why the amount of wealth one has earned is a great measure of that person's virtue, but I won't because I'm sick and tired of being accused of being a "Randroid".

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by Seph64
I am in agreement with Geekguy here, just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you morally agree to it.

But you do agree to it--that's why you signed it! Liking something and agreeing to something are two entirely separate things!

I don't like to go to work, but I agree to do so of my own free will because I find that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. I agree to do so, and if I decide later that I don't like it, I have no one to complain to but myelf.

If there were a different Recording industry that allowed the bands to have about 75% control of their songs with most of the credit, how much you want to bet that most bands would switch to it *snaps his fingers* just like that?

If someone wants to start such a business, he's free to do so. But really, there's nothing immoral about record companies today just because they're trying to make money for themselves. It's not like anyone's forcing the artists to sign with them.

When was the last time you turned down a pay raise?

[Seph64]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
If someone wants to start such a business, he's free to do so. But really, there's nothing immoral about record companies today just because they're trying to make money for themselves. It's not like anyone's forcing the artists to sign with them.

Actually the artists ARE forced to sign with them unless the artists want to remain as a garage band. All record companies are an extension of the RIAA.

The states went after MS because they were a monopoly. What I want to know is, why aren't they going after the RIAA? In my eyes, the RIAA is a monopoly. There are no other Record Industries in this country to compete against the RIAA.

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
I could post literally pages worth of reasons why profit motive is the most moral motive of all and why the amount of wealth one has earned is a great measure of that person's virtue, but I won't because I'm sick and tired of being accused of being a "Randroid".

We both could write pages on our point of view. We just agree on some points and not others. I view this as just our ways of life we choose for ourselves.

Wazza "Randroid" :confused:

[Genesee]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
It's not like anyone's forcing the artists to sign with them.


I get your point, but that's like saying "if you don't like the price of gasoline, don't buy it - no one's forcing you to."

or cable tv service, or milk, or legal service, or any other product controlled by a monopoly or a cartel. the argument that anyone that wishes can just 'compete,' or avoid using it, while literally true, is too simplistic.

It sounds nice in an ayn rand novel, but in reality when the powerful aggregate power to themselves, bribe politicians, coerce others into cooperating, form exclusive agreements in an effort to block out competition, it's not that easy. there are very large barriers to entry put in place - try competing with wal-mart for example, or Exxon, or look at the extremes m$ has gone to to stifle competition.

if the playing ground were truly level, and there were no unfair barriers, then I'd agree - linux is a great example: you don't like a program? ok, here's the source, study it and write a better one" - but it's simply not true when dealing with multinational monster corporations doing whatever they can to stop competition.

JMHO :cool:

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by Seph64
Actually the artists ARE forced to sign with them unless the artists want to remain as a garage band. All record companies are an extension of the RIAA.

No one's saying you have to become a recording artist for a living. That's a decision an individual makes, and voluntarily accepts all risks, responsibilities, and tradeoffs involved.

The states went after MS because they were a monopoly. What I want to know is, why aren't they going after the RIAA? In my eyes, the RIAA is a monopoly. There are no other Record Industries in this country to compete against the RIAA.

Because there's nothing wrong with having a monopoly.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by GeekGuy

Wazza "Randroid" :confused:

One of those ignorant *******s who totally pervert Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) by dogmatizing and memorizing Rand (and Peikoff, and Branden, etc.) and spewing out quotes by them whenever challenged instead of following the fundamental tenet of it, which is individual reason based on individual values, within a framework of absolute morality.

The ARI (Ayn Rand Institute) is full of Randroids.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by Genesee
I get your point, but that's like saying "if you don't like the price of gasoline, don't buy it - no one's forcing you to."

or cable tv service, or milk, or legal service, or any other product controlled by a monopoly or a cartel. the argument that anyone that wishes can just 'compete,' or avoid using it, while literally true, is too simplistic.
That's too bad. If you're not the one producing it, then you have no right to control or attempt to control the terms of distribution.

but it's simply not true when dealing with multinational monster corporations doing whatever they can to stop competition.

So it's hard. Deal with it. Anyway, of course they're going to try to get rid of competition--after all, the less competition, the more money they can make. Nothing wrong with that. As long as they try to accomplish their goals through the marketplace and voluntary agreements rather than violence and use of legal barriers, they're fully within their rights to do so.

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
One of those ignorant *******s who totally pervert Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) by dogmatizing and memorizing Rand (and Peikoff, and Branden, etc.) and spewing out quotes by them whenever challenged instead of following the fundamental tenet of it, which is individual reason based on individual values, within a framework of absolute morality.

Oh. Thanks :)

Then ye might be a "Redneck" IMO, but not a "Randroid" ;) :p

:D

[Genesee]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
As long as they try to accomplish their goals through the marketplace and voluntary agreements rather than violence and use of legal barriers, they're fully within their rights to do so.

of course - and that's the point - it's NOT a free marketplace. politicians are bought off to write favorable laws (DMCA, sonny bono act, etc.), power is leveraged to force smaller players into exclusive contracts, a small group controls access to the entire system, etc. If it were an equal marketplace, free of legal barriers, there wouldn't be any controversy.

[Whipping Boy]

So you know what you do? Simple--prevent government from regulating business activities (outside of protections against outright fraud and violent acts, but those apply to everyone--not just businesses). When government cannot regulate business, then businessmen no longer have any reason to buy off politicians to get favors or exemptions.

[jgr220]

This may be a bit simplistic but theoreticly couldn't verizon have taken the 5th I mean corporations hae the same status as individuals under the law. What are they gona do throw the phone company in jail for contempt:p

[SonOfAres]

would the same thing happen if someone decided to download like 1k roms in a day? jus wondrin....

[Seph64]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Because there's nothing wrong with having a monopoly.

Except that it's illegal (according to wht I hear).

[Whipping Boy]

Just because something's illegal doesn't necessarily mean it should be.

[Seph64]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Just because something's illegal doesn't necessarily mean it should be.

Do you believe that Microsoft has a right to force other companies out of business?

Do you believe that Microsoft should be the only company developing for the PC Market when it comes to Operating Systems?

If not, why say, or imply, that a monopoly is perfectly fine?

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by Seph64
Do you believe that Microsoft has a right to force other companies out of business?
If you mean through legislation or violence, no. If you mean through the market, of course they have every right to do so.

Do you believe that Microsoft should be the only company developing for the PC Market when it comes to Operating Systems?
I don't care one way or the other. If Microsoft is the only company developing operating systems for the PC, that's fine by me. If other companies want to get in on it as well, that's also fine by me. But those companies don't have a right to force their way in by using legal (as opposed to market) force to deny Microsoft what it has earned.

[Helper_Monkey]

There is a funny story over on wired.com about how kazaa is making it very difficult for RIAA to sue them/ shut them down [its not haha funny, but i thought it was funny].

The race is on to kill Kazaa (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/kazaa.html)